Re: [AVT] Inquiry about RFC 4629 (optional parameters in SDP)

On Sep 05 2007, at 06:13, Randell Jesup wrote:

>  but I'm not clear about "for a standard you
> must have only parameters that are used" and how exactly it applies  
> here.

I think the point is that 2429 (4629's predecessor) has been around  
for a while, and apparently there was no need for the other Annexes,  
at least as perceived by the WG.
4629 might actually even be the basis for going to Draft Standard,  
where there is indeed a requirement to only have options for which  
independent interoperable implementations can be demonstrated.

As a general observation about the grim reality, codec "standards"  
generally carry lots of baggage that is motivated by company X  
wanting to get their random patents in, too.  You don't really want  
to weigh down real-world standards by all that _a__age.  So, in a  
way, 2429/4629 are "profiling" H.263 for Internet work.

Gruesse, Carsten

_______________________________________________
Audio/Video Transport Working Group
avt@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/avt